Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 14:53:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Tavis Barr
To: Queer Nation
Subject: Antigay Federal Bill Introduced (fwd)
Thought y'all might find this of interest; I picked it up on another list.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: nummi@mit.edu
Subject: House Bills on Homosexuality
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 19:13:40 EST
Hi. Please read the comments at the end if you want to skip the bills
(though i don't recommend skipping either).
Two Bills introduced in Congress; 1st in House and 2nd in Senate:
------------------
To prohibit the use of Federal funds to promote
homosexuality. (Introduced in the House)
HR 862 IH
104th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 862
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 8, 1995
Mr. Dornan (for himself, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, and Mr. Manzullo) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
A BILL
To prohibit the use of Federal funds to promote homosexuality .
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO PROMOTE HOMOSEXUALITY .
No Federal funds may be used directly or indirectly to promote,
condone, accept, or celebrate homosexuality , lesbianism, or
bisexuality.
------------------
comment: I did a search on Bills which provide funding for "families"
(which meant for the most part, married opposite sex couple with
"legitimate" kids) I found about 90. I guess it is okay for the govt.
to financially condone certain sexual lifestyles, but not others.
Let's face it: federal funds including tax breaks, and other proposed
legislation which rewards mothers for marrying the fathers of their
children, etc condones and promotes heterosexuality, and traditional
heterosexuality at best.
This Bill also can be used to cut federal funding to public schools
who include homosexuality as a topic in any course, not to mention a
host of other things I can think of.
next Bill:
-------------
S 317 IS
104th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 317
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 1 (legislative day, January 30), 1995
A BILL
To stop the waste of taxpayer funds on activities by Government
agencies to encourage its employees or officials to accept
homosexuality as a legitimate or normal lifestyle.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS.
No funds appropriated out of the Treasury of the United States
may be used by any entity to fund, promote, or carry out any seminar
or program for employees of the Government, or to fund any position in
the Government, the purpose of which is to compel, instruct,
encourage, urge, or persuade employees or officials to--
(1) recruit, on the basis of sexual orientation, homosexuals for
employment with the Government; or
(2) embrace, accept, condone, or celebrate homosexuality as a
legitimate or normal lifestyle.
-------
"waste of taxpayer funds," eh? I can think of plenty of things I'd
rather not have my tax money spent on...
I hate to be a stick in the mud, but I agree with Pam and Tara
wholeheartedly. I am, of course, willing to chatter about this at the
next meeting.
However, I would remind everyone that the Contract itself, and some
other of the more offensive proposed legislation that we have been
scrutinizing (like prop 187 or english as the "official" language
bills or attacks on welfare mothers) is not often written in language
that is discriminatory against people who are immigrants, people of
color, etc. (ie. prop 187 didn't say ouright: we want to deny
Mexicans health care).
It is more insidious than that: those who support things like 187
claim that we can't support immigrants, they make excuses like
immigrants are lazy and bloodsuckers, etc. and through this sort of
imagery, the "public" (who?) will justify the discrimination against
Mexicans, Cambodians, Haitians, and other people of color who they
think "don't belong here"-- thus ignoring the amount that those
immigrants contribute to our economy through migrant work, sweatshop
work, and other low low low paying jobs which create low cost products
for us to consume, and also ignoring the fact that only certain types
of immigrants are unwelcome here-- no one is rushing to kick out the
boodsucking Canadians, for instance, who are the number on immigrant
group in this country.
Same with welfare mothers-- imagery of the greedy black mother with 17
children who is sucking up the taxpayer dollar justifies to "the
public" that we need to cut welfare spending, thus dodging the issue
that welfare is not that big of an expense compared to other items in
the federal budget, and also downplaying the amount that racialized
imagery is used to push shitty policy.
So, when you all talk about "not reading in to things" and picking at
straws over homosexuality, I think you are falling prey to that exact
same mentality, which is one that I think we should be fighting
against.
Also, I am a bit surprised at the position of not accepting
homosexuality because one is "raised to think that way." I was raised
to think like a racist, but that doesn't excuse it or make it
acceptable for me to think people of color are not acceptable people.
geez, since when do we not question our societal upbringing?
I am not advocating that we split in to "single issue groups". I am
asking that we not pick and choose in order to "look good" to
so-called moderates. Everyone keeps saying that we are all adversely
affected by the contract-- I don't think that is true. I think some
of us are getting hit way harder than others, and to try to appeal to
everyone ignores the fact that there are power dynamics in legislation
that have to be challenged as well. Some people are benefitting from
these proposed laws, and some are not. We have to challenge the
conditions that make that possible, otherwise these same sorts of laws
will keep re-appearing, and our protests will make no lasting change.
-nummi
p.s. I also notice that we are allowed to editorialize when we all
agree, but when we don't we are to save it for meetings. The recent
New York Times post about the 4th amendment is an example of that.
I'm sure we will dicuss this at a meeting.
p.p.s. don't take this as a message that "I don't want to work on this
group." We agreed to post stuff that would show people what kind of
legislation is out there; since there was so much hemming and hawing
about queers, I thought it appropriate.